Reader Comments and Retorts

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Chris Paul and Tim Duncan (both out of Wake Forest) got me thinking -- which schools have produced the most NBA win shares without winning an NCAA title? Without a national championship game appearance? Without a Final Four?

Chris Paul and Tim Duncan (both out of Wake Forest) got me thinking -- which schools have produced the most NBA win shares without winning an NCAA title? Without a national championship game appearance? Without a Final Four?

I think its probably LSU for the first two questions. They've got a slight lead on Wake through the top 3 mins guys. Duncan's got 10 on Shaq but Bob Petit has about 20 on Paul at the moment. Then Bogues and Pistol Pete are pretty close, Muggsy has about 8 on Maravich. And LSU has more guys total 34 to 28. It's close at the top though so it could go either way I think. I'm thinking it will be Wake easily by the end of Paul's career. Also, LSU apparently claims some supposed national title from the 30s but I ignored that since it predates the NBA and the tournament and is probably mostly bullshit anyway.

I think it might be Louisiana Tech for the last question. They only have 6 tourney appearances total and none farther than the Sweet 16. And Karl Malone goes a long way if you're totaling up win shares. They have a couple other guys with decent totals too.

This was pretty quick and dirty though. I don't know how to check it systematically on basketballreference so I was just spot-checking guys near the top of the leaderboard. I figure for a school to top one of those lists they will need somebody or a couple somebodys pretty far up the list. I definitely could have missed somebody obvious.

1316: Houston looks pretty damn possible. I think Elvin Hayes, Hakeem and Clyde have nearly 420 between them, which makes them the clubhouse leader at the moment I think. and they have 29 players total. They'd be my bet now, I think.

You can see the list here, sadly, WS isn't conveniently displayed and I'm not going to add them all up by hand:

I of course am only speculating, but no. He is under contract for 14/15, and after the bad start, the set-up worked out OK. Plumlee and Blatche are good enough that Garnett can rest a lot, and he remains a pretty effective player on a pretty good team. If Miami goes into Brooklyn and wipes them out two more times, I would guess that Garnett will think about quitting but will ultimately come back. Duncan and Nowitzki are still playing; Bryant is going to try to play next year. I think Garnett will play as well.

In the same ballpark, Georgia Tech (303k minutes; 13 players with >10K minute careers - well more than any of the other schools discussed). None of those careers began before '87 - Cremins had quite a run of producing pros...

As for non-F4 programs, Clemson has produced a bunch of good big men (the big five being: Horace Grant, Nance, Dale Davis, Elden Campbell, Tree Rollins) worth 190K minutes. A more balanced program that has produced less "bulk" without a F4 appearance is BYU (136k minutes).

I'm sure there's some schools that produced a bunch of good guys in the wayback as well.

So, uh, what has Steve Kerr done that makes him everyone's wonderboy? As a Warriors fan, I'll take Van Gundy or even Hoiberg instead. Hoiberg especially seems like a basketball savant to me and, if the Warriors are adamant about giving a guy his first NBA shot, I'd much rather him than Kerr.

Kerr is by most accounts exceptionally articulate and personable, seems to be intelligent, and he has been associated with a lot of great teams. Obviously, we don't know what kind of coach he would make, but I can see why teams would think about him.

As to The Mayor, he has a 10-year deal with Iowa State, they supposedly just upped his deal to 2.6M a year, and the buyout if he goes to the NBA is 500K. So he would have to want to coach in the NBA pretty damn bad to bail right now.

George Karl just made a public statement to the effect that he is interested in coaching again--not coincidentally right after Jackson got fired.

George Karl just made a public statement to the effect that he is interested in coaching again--not coincidentally right after Jackson got fired.

I could see why he'd want his hands on that roster, but we've already done the Karl thing! A 500K buyout just tells me Hoiberg can leave any time he wants. That's not going to mean anything to him or an NBA team. I definitely think he's a dark horse for the job for a lot of reasons. Everything I'm hearing from the Warriors' blogs is that Kerr is by far their first choice as he has ties to the area and he has known people in the organization for many years. So...I guess it's up to Steve Kerr at this point unless Dolan backs up a garbage truck full of money, as I assume Steve Kerr is not made of stone.

The veteran coach said Wednesday that he'd like to "get back in the gym," and that "Mitch will probably give me a phone conversation along the way."

"I would love the opportunity to probably talk to people, when they think I'm a person they should be talking to," Karl said of the Lakers' opening, along with potential spots in New York, Golden State and Detroit.

Sure, but he would be walking away from a situation in which he is revered and is guaranteed $26M for sticking around. Hoiberg is only 41; I would bet money that he will coach in the NBA someday. But I would guess that he would like to try get Iowa State to the Final Four and do stuff like that first for a few years before he tries the NBA.

This article gives the writer's opinions on the roles of culture and race in the Mark Jackson firing, and has drawn a lot of attention for being well thought-out even if you don't agree with it. I was reluctant to link to it since I am leery of politicizing the NBA talk, but it seems relevant: link

Sure, but he would be walking away from a situation in which he is revered and is guaranteed $26M for sticking around. Hoiberg is only 41; I would bet money that he will coach in the NBA someday. But I would guess that he would like to try get Iowa State to the Final Four and do stuff like that first for a few years before he tries the NBA.

It's always hard to know what constitutes a dream job for different people. In most cases, moving on from Iowa St is a no-brainer - there's pleny of NCAA jobs much better than that, not to mention the NBA. But like you said, it's different for him there. You never know if he'll ever be as hot of a candidate again (same thing for Kevin Ollie - in fact, all of this applies to him as well, if not moreso). I personally can no longer fault any coach for picking one job over another, even if it doesn't make sense to me. Having said all that, I think he *should* jump at an NBA chance now.

Griffin, Paul, Durant, and Westbrook would all be so much more amazing to watch if they quit with their stupid shenanigans (flopping, whining, using silly tricks to get to the foul line) and just played fricking basketball.

I'm starting to think the Cavs might be not the best run organization in the NBA. That he didn't succeed isn't surprising, but it still is a little jarring that it only took one season (and also odd that it took this long into their offseason before firing him).

Griffin, Paul, Durant, and Westbrook would all be so much more amazing to watch if they quit with their stupid shenanigans (flopping, whining, using silly tricks to get to the foul line) and just played fricking basketball.

I'm starting to think the Cavs might be not the best run organization in the NBA. That he didn't succeed isn't surprising, but it still is a little jarring that it only took one season (and also odd that it took this long into their offseason before firing him).

The crazy part is that they gave him a 5 year contract! If you are rehiring someone you already know and you're prepared to let him go after one mediocre but not totally disastrous season, why would you give him anything like 5 years? smdh

Dan Gilbert is incredibly unlikeable, (and still the subprime mortgage and degenerate gambling connoisseur isn't the biggest crook of a sports owner in town) but he is good at riling up the fanbase with ridiculous promises he can't possibly keep, so the fanbase still loves him. I'd still like them to be at least marginally competently run. Which I think means trading Irving while he still has some All-star Game MVP!1! shine on.

I love the Cavs, but my god, they make it almost as hard to root for them as the Browns (who I've long given up on).

Trading Irving seems crazy. Your only chance to be a contender in the next 5 or so years is to hope Irving blossoms into a superstar. Nobody else on the roster is going to and even if you luck out in this or some other lottery the top players take time to develop into that superstar. Irving has a legitimate chance of getting there, I think they have to keep betting on him, it's not worth trying to bottom out when you have a visible path to success. Mostly in the NBA you need a supermax guy you're paying the max to (Spurs notwithstanding) and Irving has a shot there.

We've been hoping, and Irving has proven to be more of a coach-killing, defense-ignoring, bucket-getter than a winner. Unless they can convince an elite (we all know the name we're talking about here) FA to join the team, betting on Irving seems like a sure-fire plan to make it all the way to the no-man's land of 40ish wins. And a huge part of that is on people other than Irving. The three lottery picks taken after him have played a big part in the current state of the franchise.

Punt and try again. Sure, you might be the Clippers, but I'd rather eventually get a Griffin than get excited about taking a game off the #1 seed.

Blake Griffin was just going to be a defense-ignoring 40 win player until they got Chris Paul. Same with Harden in Houston before they got Howard. Now neither of those guys have won anything yet. But more and more these years I'm starting to think purgatory is oversold for the NBA. You generally need 2 elite players to contend in the NBA. Getting rid of one in hopes to get a better one through the draft still leaves you a player short.

i know donald sterling's commentary would fit in just fine at the various nursing homes we visit as part of making the rounds seeing friends. they have these wings where folks with mild dementia are located and that kind of general somewhat disjointed rambling is commonplace

Not exactly my favorite stat, but Irving has put up 3 straight years of .125 WS/48. Griffin put up a .152 his rookie year and improved each year. Harden easily tops Irving after his rookie year as well.

Griffin's Clips put up 32 wins his rookie year, Harden's Rockets won 45 before Howard. Both are much more impressive than Irving getting the Cavaliers to 33 wins in his third year in this awful Eastern conference. The Cavs still have some steps to make to even get to purgatory, much less get past it.

In regards to Griffin getting Paul, like I said,

Unless they can convince an elite FA to join the team

. If they can get Lebron, Anthony, or Bosh to sign, or can make a winning bid for Love (they can't) that changes the ballgame. But they're going to have trouble convincing Deng to come back considering how much of a mess that locker room was. They're probably going to end up drafting McDermott, way overpaying for Monroe and considering the offseason a rousing success.

Punt and try again. If I say I'd rather eventually get a Griffin and a few more shots to get the right pieces to trade for a Paul instead, does that work for you?

The Cavs should try to hire Lionel Hollins. He ran a pretty tight ship in Memphis, turned them into a pretty excellent defensive team, seemed to maximize the talent of many of the guys he had, and has one pretty definite success in developing a young PG in Mike Conley. Now it's hard to say definitively how much credit he actually deserves for all of that, but I'm inclined to think its a fair amount. He did an impressive enough job in Memphis that he probably deserves another shot and if I was a team like Cleveland flirting around the edges of the playoffs I'd give him a pretty hard look.

I'd try something like that before I gave up on Kyrie just yet, I think.

I think Cleveland is in a pretty tight spot with Irving. I don't think he's proven that he's worth maxing out yet, and as CMD600 points out, the lack of any real development is worrisome. But I think Maxwn and Spivey make a good point that getting rid of him now just sets you back another couple of years.

I think a legit question is whether or not Irving wants to stay in Cleveland. I think they'd be more likely to trade him before he hits UFA after The Decision. I have my questions about him, but if he wants to stick around, they need to do everything to keep him around.

We've become a little jaded to LeBron putting up 49 by going 16-24/3-6/14-19 huh?

I think we're just waiting for the next round, hopefully against a rejuvenated Pacers lineup. It's tremendously impressive to do that against anyone, and the history with Pierce and Garnett makes for a decent storyline, but it's hard to be invested in what the Heat are doing when they're still playing a woefully overmatched team that couldn't have sniffed the playoffs in the West and had the 23rd best defense in the league this year.

Any early thoughts on Thunder-Clippers tonight? How much should Chris Paul guard Durant? If the Clippers go super-small again, how should the Thunder counter? It seems to me that Westbrook-Jackson-Thabo-Durant-Ibaka is their best option, but Brooks only played that lineup 51 minutes this season (it was +44 per 100 possessions).

Any early thoughts on Thunder-Clippers tonight? How much should Chris Paul guard Durant? If the Clippers go super-small again, how should the Thunder counter? It seems to me that Westbrook-Jackson-Thabo-Durant-Ibaka is their best option, but Brooks only played that lineup 51 minutes this season (it was +44 per 100 possessions).

I am fascinated by this. Does Doc have the guts to bench DeAndre and go Blake/Wing/3PGs? That was how they came back in the game, but obvs it was super energy intensive.

To your second point, Thabo could be replaced with anyone, but Brooks seems allergic to that line-up, despite it seeming like his best one. Westbrook/Jackson is so different in the backcourt than any other look. The Thunder can go small and retain some shotblocking and defense, but they don't want to. The Clippers risk more by going small, yet do so.

As for non-F4 programs, Clemson has produced a bunch of good big men (the big five being: Horace Grant, Nance, Dale Davis, Elden Campbell, Tree Rollins) worth 190K minutes. A more balanced program that has produced less "bulk" without a F4 appearance is BYU (136k minutes).

I'm at the point where I'm already sure they're set back. Rip the band-aid off now instead of wasting another couple years. It's not just the on-court play, which is highlight-worthy but doesn't win many games. It's arguing with the coaches, fighting with other players, bickering with the media, and a complete lack of leadership.

I think one difference between their circumstances is that we had seen Wall be a positive player offensively and defensively. He missed some time and had warts in his game (like his jump shot), but there was no question that he could be a positive impact on both ends. With Irving, the question of how much of his great offense his awful defense negates is up in the air. I think I pretty easily prefer Wall. Even so, I would sign Irving to a max contract instantly.

Agreed. But that gives him even more security, as it'll take him years to clean up Dumars's mess. With the Warriors, he has a couple of seasons to win a title or he's probably looking again. That's also with the added pressure of winning over the star player who loved the old coach.

It might not just be control though. I think there's a whole lot more job security in Detroit (look how long Dumars got to stick around). Then again, you'd have to live in Detroit. So...

I think it's control. After all the crap with Dwight, I'd bet SVG would want to be able to just rid himself of headaches. Lots of these guys do. I don't think it's a smart move, but Detroit has been doing unwise things for years.

What is the cost of housing difference between Detroit and the Bay Area? 20:1 or so? I guess SVG will probably not have to worry too much about that.

My wife was recently offered a job that would have required her to spend a lot of time near Detroit. We spent a few hours one night perusing neighborhoods, and thought about one that we might have bought. Not a house in the neighborhood, the entire neighborhood. 20:1 seems low.

(Her company topped with a counteroffer, which was great. We never really considered moving there, but the idea of owning an entire neighborhood seemed fun.)

Hell, the Pontiac Silverdome sold for $583,000. $583,000! In Boulder, where I live, that buys you a decent house with a solid view and no land. It's slightly more than half the price of the lovely loft condo I stumbled across downtown last week.

The Detroit metropolitan area is full of happy people. Lots of tax revenue, lots of social services, school districts expanding. All the misery is concentrated in the borders of the blighted city itself.

Man, I own a townhome that is about as vaulable as the Pontiac Silverdome, and Hulk Hogan never even bodyslammed Andre the Giant in my house. As far as I know, he never bodyslammed ANYBODY in my house.

SVG- Detroit is a mess, but I wouldn't say it is an irredeemable mess. Sure, the roster is messed up by having their three good players be a PF, a C, and a PF/C. On the other hand, at least they have 3 good players!

I think it is basically a certainty that Drummond remains the C and they shop one of Smith or Monroe (S&T, I suppose, depending on timing). Monroe probably has more trade value, but he might also have more value to the team if they kept him. If SVG wants to do what he did in Orlando with 4 around 1, Smith does not fit in the Rashard Lewis spot. Then again, Drummond does not yet command a double in the low post, so maybe he uses a different offensive approach anyway. But let's just say that they can swap Monroe for a floor-spacing wing (someone like Ariza, for the sake of argument) and draft a developmental guard to eventually push Jennings (maybe Kyle Anderson). Then he goes into next year with Jennings, KCP, Ariza, Smith, Drummond with some young players with growth potential on the bench. If Drummond takes a step forward, that is probably immediately a better team than the bottom couple playoff teams in the East with some flexibility down the road.